It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Something Very Interesting Is Happening In Iowa, Like a Very Organized Version of OWS

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   

DES MOINES — Ron Paul’s college-aged volunteer army — a core of the powerful ground organization that is the envy of rivals — is descending on Iowa from around the nation

And they say they are under strict orders: To look, dress, shave, sound and behave in a way that will not jeopardize Mr. Paul’s chances. Even before flying here on their own nickel, some students said they had been instructed to cover up tattoos and told that their faces should be fresh-shaved or beards neatly trimmed, wearing only nice clothes that one described as “business casual.”

Much of their efforts have been cloaked in secrecy: They said that once they arrive at the camp they are under orders not to speak to journalists or make postings on social media sites about their activities in Iowa, a provocative limitation for a movement lubricated by the effective use of the Internet. A half-dozen Paul aides declined to comment or allow a visit to volunteers.

www.nytimes.com... XAo6RCX5cPQ


Something different is happening in Iowa, and it's not like what happened during Obama's campaign
This seems to be way more organized

Since it's cloaked in secrecy I can't wait to see what's behind the curtains when the time comes

I imagine it's nothing extravagant, just educating the volunteers before they go sway Iowans, nonetheless things are looking very interesting.




posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


In 2008, we woke up one morning to Ron Paul R3volution graphiti and yard signs all over this college town, and it was quite a turn off. Of course, I like Ron Paul, but I don't like graphiti, and I don't like scare tactics, and I don't like pop culture drivel, and so as much as the exposure was good, the sour taste was bad. I'm sure it lost him more votes than it gained him.

So, for 2012, I'm thinking his campaign manager is much more professional and organized. Going door to door or business to business and answering FAQ's, and handing out pamphlets, and portraying a good wholesome patriotic image could be HUGELY successful. I hope that is the direction they are turning, and not the anarchist direction like 2008.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I dress normal and business casual to begin with but liberty should not be about being told what to wear, instead it should be about individuality. This is why if you really want to be like ron paul, and theres no reason not to admire and respect him, you should focus on how liberty unites all groups as opposed to creating a certain dress code. I've never heard Ron Paul tell anyone to shave or cover up a tattoo. I would like him less if he did that. Even when OWS is heckling him he laughs and says "aint free speech great" that alone wins more hearts than a collective group of look a likes. If we try too hard to please the establishment we risk selling our integrity. After all, shouldn't we support war because thats whats "normal"? No. We are what we are because of individuality. If Ron Paul told people not to support him if they have a tattoo showing, everyone with a tattoo would be turned off. Ron Paul doesn't give into the establishments need for a top down contol, and neither should we.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I disagree.

I'm all for personal liberties as well, but my employees are expected to look and act a certain way that portrays the correct image of my establishment.

Ron Paul has been called "unelectable" many times, and part of it is because of his rabid, anarchist supporters. Ron Paul is not an anarchist, nor is he an isolationist, nor is he pro-drug, or pro-abortion. He doesn't want his supporters sending the wrong message. He wants his supporters portraying the correct platform that he is running on. Non-interventionalism and laissez-fairre, not isolationism. State's Rights and small government, not pro-anything. Civil liberties, and limited government, not anarchy.

So, asking his supporters to look and act professional is perfectly acceptable in my book. It would be better if they don't show up at all, compared to showing up looking like hippies and ranting about drugs.
Ron Paul's campaign is going great, and the last thing in the world he needs is a moment where an Iowa town wakes up to find R3volution and Anarchy posters everywhere and a bunch of hippies running around shouting about Ron Paul. That would be the worst possible thing to happen to his "mainstream" campaign at this moment in time.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
To me...it's like going for a job interview. You put your best foot forward. I see nothing different in this situation.

After all....they are asking people to take a look at their candidate, and vote for him.

edit on 29-12-2011 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Here's another article that doesn't require login.

Young Ron Paul volunteers Descend on Iowa



about two-dozen college-aged Ron Paul volunteers mingled in the cold night air.
...
Though several of them were eager to extol Paul's support for drug legalization and opposition to the CIA's targeted drone strikes in Pakistan, none mentioned the candidate's pro-life credentials that have been a focal point of his TV advertising campaign here.


I kind of feel like: If the kids want to elect Paul and they can get enough votes together, then I think they deserve it. The future is theirs. They should be permitted to do whatever it takes to make this happen, if they feel so passionate about it. I hope they don't succeed, but I do admire their passion and willingness to get involved.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



I hope they don't succeed, but I do admire their passion and willingness to get involved.


Not a Ron Paul supporter?

If you don't mind me stumping for my candidate, I'd be happy to dispel any myths or rumors about the man, and I'm interested to know who you think is a better candidate?



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I kind of feel like: If the kids want to elect Paul and they can get enough votes together, then I think they deserve it. The future is theirs. They should be permitted to do whatever it takes to make this happen, if they feel so passionate about it. I hope they don't succeed, but I do admire their passion and willingness to get involved.


I'm not voting for him either, but I agree that they should be permitted to do as they wish. I'm not sure if they've thought about the local reaction, though, to a bunch of out of state folks showing up as they're going into a caucus process. I'd find it pushy and annoying. If Texans want to do this for the Texas Republican Caucus, I'm all for it (though the Paul supporters made a lot of mistakes last time because they didn't actually read up on how the Caucus works here in Texas.)

I think it'd be far more effective if each state's supporters focused on their states and didn't try to rush in to every other state in the union.

...and I certainly don't want their signs on my lawn (which did bring up another thought -- some homeowners like myself will complain if someone sticks unwanted election signs on our lawns... and we know to complain to the city Code Compliance department. Cities CAN ban these signs and fine campaigns if people are running around placing them where they're not wanted. In fact, they can do that for signs that folks tack up on telephone poles and other public places. The Republican and Democrat parties are aware of this, but I'm not sure that the enthusiastic Paul supporters are.)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I heard from a friend of a friend that knows absolutely nothing about this......that they are coming to Iowa so they can observe the elections and make sure there is no shenanigans.

I don't know if it's true, but I m just as curious as to why. Can't wait to see.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Not a Ron Paul supporter?


I go back and forth, but at this time, I can't see myself voting for him. I like his foreign policy and a small portion of his domestic policy, really, but there's too much about his positions and strategies that I disagree with. And his age and personality do not fit with a person who has to be our ambassador to the world. More than any other time, his VP is going to be an important pick. I want to know who will be replacing him if he turns toes up during his term.

Don't assume that everyone not voting for Paul is believing in "myths". I do my research.
This isn't really the thread for me to expand.



I'm interested to know who you think is a better candidate?


I'm not sure. I haven't made any firm decisions yet and probably won't until September or October.
And even then, I'm not sure I'm going to say. I have yet to look into Jon Huntsman.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
I think it'd be far more effective if each state's supporters focused on their states and didn't try to rush in to every other state in the union.


I agree. They seem to be basing a lot on the outcome of the Iowa Caucus. Not sure why... Iowans are (generally) conservative and they hate the gay marriage and the abortion, so Ron might do pretty well there...

This reminds me of the anti-gay marriage movement that descended on California and guaranteed the passage of Prop 8... Ugh! I hope it's NOTHING like that.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Fair enough. Take your time and let things sort themselves out. That approach has been working terrificly so far in this election cycle. Perry, Cain, and Newt have all sorted themselves right out of the race, LOL! Bachmann seems to be next to go.

Then, when it is down to Romney, Paul, and Obama the decision making process becomes a lot more clear.

I agree with you about the VP candidate being a HUGE factor. Personally, I think Paul should name his key cabinet positions and his likely considerations for VP. That might add all the legitimacy to his campaign that it needs.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Byrd
I think it'd be far more effective if each state's supporters focused on their states and didn't try to rush in to every other state in the union.


I agree. They seem to be basing a lot on the outcome of the Iowa Caucus. Not sure why... Iowans are (generally) conservative and they hate the gay marriage and the abortion, so Ron might do pretty well there...

This reminds me of the anti-gay marriage movement that descended on California and guaranteed the passage of Prop 8... Ugh! I hope it's NOTHING like that.


Actually, since Ron Paul does not oppose gay marriage or abortion, then it might actually hurt him in that state. He won't support a Federal law to ban either one of those things, and to some people that is a huge issue with him as a candidate.

Even my local Tea Party, which I am so proud of, is worried about his refusal to address those issues in the manner they would like. The extreme right wants to see a pro-life candidate, and although Ron Paul has personal views that are pro-life, he won't support any pro-life legislation. Therefore, he isn't the Tea Party's ideal candidate.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Actually, since Ron Paul does not oppose gay marriage or abortion, then it might actually hurt him in that state.


Whether or not his views will hurt him in Iowa, Paul does personally oppose abortion and would work to define life as occurring at conception... on a federal level... through his Sanctity of Life Act. You cannot convince me that he doesn't oppose abortion.

I know what his plans are, but removing federal protection of women's rights would effectively allow states to make abortion illegal, even in all cases. It would be entirely up to the state and I cannot support that. Abortion isn't even an issue with me. I would never have one unless my life was threatened, even in case of rape or incest. But that's ME. And each woman has to have the freedom to make that VERY personal decision, unfettered by ANY government, federal or state.

As it is now, abortion is legal and it needs to stay that way. It's a privacy and freedom issue for me.



He won't support a Federal law to ban either one of those things, and to some people that is a huge issue with him as a candidate.


I understand what you're saying, but they also might see it as their opportunity to ban abortion in Iowa and that would be just peachy for them.


he won't support any pro-life legislation.


I consider his Sanctity of Life Act and his We the People Act BOTH to be pro-life legislation. So does he.



Paul spoke passionately about his pro-life position, which includes his introduction of the Sanctity of Life Act, while campaigning for U.S. president in 2007, such as in Lawton, Iowa.[6] Paul Dorr of nearby Ocheyedan became Paul's Iowa campaign field coordinator because of Paul's strong pro-life stance, stating that unlike other Republicans, Paul does not abandon his position while in office; Paul's sponsorship of the Sanctity of Life Act was immediately cited.[7]

When Paul mentioned the legislation in a personal "Statement of Faith",[8] CBN News White House correspondent David Brody noted that Paul was an exception to the pattern of the 2008 Republican candidates for president not engaging in "God talk".[9] The California Catholic Daily also cited Paul as "abortion's 'unshakeable foe'" with the Act as evidence.


Source

He can talk all he wants about a hands off approach, but in this way, he's just like all the rest who say they want "freedom" and to protect our rights. Yes, the freedoms and rights THEY agree with. But the freedoms and rights they don't agree with? Outlaw them or let the states outlaw them. If he really wanted to protect our rights, it would be across the board, IMO.




top topics



 
5

log in

join